Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 48 views

    Kummer V People

    Uploaded by

    Metrac Cobar
    The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Leticia Kummer for homicide. The prosecution presented evidence that Kummer's son shot and killed Jesus Mallo at their home. Another witness saw Kummer then shoot Mallo with a long gun as he lay on the ground. The Court ruled that changing the date of the crime from July 19, 1988 to June 19, 1988 in the amended information was a formal amendment as the time difference was minor and did not alter the nature of the offense. As such, rearraignment of Kummer on the amended information was not necessary.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Kummer V People

    Uploaded by

    Metrac Cobar
    48 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Leticia Kummer for homicide. The prosecution presented evidence that Kummer's son shot and killed Jesus Mallo at their home. Another witness saw Kummer then shoot Mallo with a long gun as he lay on the ground. The Court ruled that changing the date of the crime from July 19, 1988 to June 19, 1988 in the amended information was a formal amendment as the time difference was minor and did not alter the nature of the offense. As such, rearraignment of Kummer on the amended information was not necessary.

    Original Title

    Kummer v People

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Leticia Kummer for homicide. The prosecution presented evidence that Kummer's son shot and killed Jesus Mallo at their home. Another witness saw Kummer then shoot Mallo with a long gun as he lay on the ground. The Court ruled that changing the date of the crime from July 19, 1988 to June 19, 1988 in the amended information was a formal amendment as the time difference was minor and did not alter the nature of the offense. As such, rearraignment of Kummer on the amended information was not necessary.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    48 views2 pages

    Kummer V People

    Uploaded by

    Metrac Cobar
    The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Leticia Kummer for homicide. The prosecution presented evidence that Kummer's son shot and killed Jesus Mallo at their home. Another witness saw Kummer then shoot Mallo with a long gun as he lay on the ground. The Court ruled that changing the date of the crime from July 19, 1988 to June 19, 1988 in the amended information was a formal amendment as the time difference was minor and did not alter the nature of the offense. As such, rearraignment of Kummer on the amended information was not necessary.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    LETICIA I. KUMMER v.

    PEOPLE
    GR No. 174461, 2013-09-11

    FACTS:
    The CA decision affirmed... judgment... of the Regional Trial Court (RTC)... finding the
    petitioner and her co-accused Freiderich Johan I. Kummer guilty beyond reasonable doubt
    of the crime of homicide... prosecution's evidence revealed that... on June 19, 1988
    Jesus Mallo, Jr., accompanied by Amiel Malana, went to the house of the petitioner. Mallo
    knocked at the front door with a stone and identified himself by saying, "Auntie, ako si Boy
    Mallo."
    The petitioner opened the door and at this point, her son and co-accused, Johan, using his
    left hand, shot Mallo twice using a gun
    Malana, who was with Mallo and who witnessed the shooting, immediately ran towards the
    west,... followed by Mallo.
    When Malana turned his back, he saw the petitioner leveling and firing her long gun at Mallo,
    hitting the latter's back and causing him to fall flat on the ground.
    The prosecution filed an information... for homicide... against the petitioner and Johan
    B... oth accused were arraigned and ple... aded not guilty to the crime charged. They waived
    the pre-trial, and the trial... on the merits accordingly followed.
    The petitioner claims that she was not arraigned on the amended information for which she
    was convicted.
    the records of the case evidently show that the amendment in the complaint was from July
    19, 1988 to June 19, 1988, or a difference of only one month.
    ISSUES:
    a change of date of the commission of a crime is a formal amendment... whether an
    arraignment is necessary.
    RULING:
    Section 14, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court permits a formal amendment of a complaint even
    after the plea but only if it is made with leave of court and provided that it can be done
    without causing prejudice to the rights of the accused. Section 14 provides:
    Section 14. Amendment or substitution. A complaint or information may be amended, in
    form or in substance, without leave of court, at any time before the accused enters his plea.
    After the plea and during the trial, a formal amendment may only be made with... leave of
    court and when it can be done without causing prejudice to the rights of the accused.
    A mere change in the date of the commission of the crime, if the disparity of time is not great,
    is more formal than substantial. Such an amendment would not prejudice the rights of the
    accused since the proposed amendment would not alter the nature of the offense.
    It is not even necessary to state in the complaint or information the precise time at which the
    offense was committed except when time is a material ingredient of the offense.
    The act may be alleged to have been committed at any time as near as to the... actual date at
    which date the offense was committed, as the information will permit. Under the
    circumstances, the precise time is not an essential ingredient of the crime of homicide.
    Arraignment is indispensable in bringing the accused to court and in notifying him of the
    nature and cause of the accusations against him. The importance of arraignment is based on
    the constitutional right of the accused to be informed.
    The need for arraignment is equally imperative in an amended information or complaint.
    This however,... pertains only to substantial amendments and not to formal amendments
    that, by their very nature, do not charge an offense different from that charged in the...
    original complaint or information; do not alter the theory of the prosecution; do not cause
    any surprise and affect the line of defense; and do not adversely affect the substantial rights
    of the accused, such as an amendment in the date of the commission of the offense.
    It is clear that consistent with the rule on amendments... the change in the date of the
    commission of the crime of homicide is a formal amendment - it does not change the nature
    of the crime, does not affect the essence of the offense nor deprive the accused of an
    opportunity to meet the new averment, and... is not prejudicial to the accused.

    You might also like